From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun May  9 05:23:02 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10A8416A4CE
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sun,  9 May 2004 05:23:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.mail.ru (mx1.mail.ru [194.67.45.221])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1FA43D46
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Sun,  9 May 2004 05:23:01 -0700 (PDT)	(envelope-from tsmm@list.ru)
Received: from [80.241.32.168] (port=49208 helo=168dial.supernet.kz)
	by mx1.mail.ru with esmtp 
	id 1BMnGM-0009vx-00
	for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Sun, 09 May 2004 16:18:35 +0400
From: TSaplin Mikhail <tsmm@list.ru>
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 19:22:36 +0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200405091922.36624.tsmm@list.ru>
X-Spam: Not detected
Subject: GATEKEEPER.MCAST.NET again (unexpected traffic)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 May 2004 12:23:02 -0000

Recently I wrote, that I have litle traffic to GATEKEEPER.MCAST.NET,
(tcpdump show this:
20:32:41.496039 129dial.supernet.kz.52075 > GATEKEEPER.MCAST.NET.1718: udp 31
)

David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> on my question wrote:
>Does sockstat show which process is using port 52075?
No, sockstat show nothing about this.

I've installed new system due express installation - but packets is steel 
going.

Maybe this is going on your 5.1 system, and is this right?